Case 9:17-cv-80728-DMM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2018 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 17-cv-80728 MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIRST AMERICAN BANK, as

Successor by merger to Bank of
Coral Gables, LLC,

Defendant.
/

JOINT RESPONSE TO
MEDIATION SHOW CAUSE ORDER

COME NOW the parties to this litigation, the Plaintiff, LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER

(hereinafter “Schneider” or “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant, FIRST AMERICAN BANK

(hereinafter “First American”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties”), by and

through their respective undersigned attorneys, and in accordance with the Court’s

January 3, 2018 and January 4, 2018 Orders [DE 46], hereby file this their Joint Response

demonstrating that good cause exists why the Parties should not be sanctioned.

At the outset, both Parties are fully cognizant of their respective duties and

responsibilities to this Court with respect to Mediation. Shortly stated, and as set forth in

greater detail below, this case is not yet at issue. Until the Parties know what the causes

of action in the case will be, full compliance with United States Magistrate Judge

Brannon’s July 5, 2017 Trial Scheduling Order [DE 18] (which, among other things,
Case 9:17-cv-80728-DMM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2018 Page 2 of 6

schedules this case for trial during the two week period commencing on February 20,

2018) is virtually impossible for the Parties. The Parties are in agreement that until the

issues in this case are better defined by this Court’s ruling on First American’s pending

and fully-briefed (1) Motion to Dismiss [DE 36, DE 39 and DE 40] and (2) Motion Asking

the Court to Abstain from Exercising Jurisdiction over this Matter [DE 34, DE 38, DE 41],

the currently-scheduled February 20, 2018 trial date may no longer be realistic by virtue

of events occurring after the July 5, 2017 Trial Scheduling Order was entered. As a result,

requiring Mediation to be scheduled, conducted and completed 60 days before the trial

date (by December 22, 2017) is premature and futile, in light of the pending Motions.

Litigation Chronology

1. On June 13, 2017, Schneider filed the original Complaint [DE 1] pro se.

2. On June 30, 2017, Attorney Manjit Gill filed his Notice of Appearance [DE

9] as counsel for the Plaintiff.

3. By Order of this Court dated July 5, 2017 [DE 14], Attorney Brent Tantillo

was admitted pro hac vice as co-counsel for the Plaintiff.

4. On July 5, 2017, Keller & Bolz, LLP entered its Notice of Appearance [DE

15] as counsel of record for First American.

5. On July 5, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., the parties participated in a telephonic

scheduling conference with United States Magistrate Brannon [DE 17].

6. On July 5, 2017, following the telephonic scheduling conference, United

States Magistrate Judge Dan Brannon issued a Pre-Trial Scheduling Order and Order

Referring Case to Mediation [DE 18].

2
Case 9:17-cv-80728-DMM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2018 Page 3 of 6

7. On July 17, 2017, in accordance with Paragraph 11 (“Order of Referral to

Mediation/Settlement Conference”), the parties telephonically conferred in a timely

fashion but were unable to agree upon a Mediator.

8. On July 19, 2017, and in accordance with Paragraph 11 (“Order of Referral

to Mediation/Settlement Conference”), the parties advised the Court that they had been

unable to reach an agreement on the selection of a Mediator and requested the Court to

appoint a Mediator [DE 22].

9. On July 20, 2017, the Clerk of the Court designated Attorney Murray H.

Dubbin as the Mediator in the captioned litigation [DE 24].

10. On August 21, 2017, Schneider (by and through his newly-appearing

attorneys) filed his First Amended Complaint [DE 26].

11. On September 6, 2017, First American filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

First Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) [DE 36] and First American’s Motion

Asking the Court to Abstain from Exercising Jurisdiction over this Matter [DE 34] which

the Clerk of the Court and the docket sheet thereafter refer to as a “Motion to Stay.”

12. On September 20, 2017, Schneider filed his Responses in Opposition to

First American’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay [DE 38 and 39].

13. On September 27, 2017, First American filed its Replies relating to the

Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay [DE 40 and DE 41].

Good Cause

When United States District Court Magistrate Judge Brannon, on July 5, 2017,

scheduled the captioned litigation for trial on February 20, 2018 seven months in the

future, this litigation had been pending for just three weeks. Brent Tantillo, Esquire and

Henry H. Bolz, III, Esquire, appeared in this case on that same date, July 5, 2017.

3
Case 9:17-cv-80728-DMM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2018 Page 4 of 6

Unbeknownst to Magistrate Brannon and the undersigned attorneys in July was

the fact that the original pro se-filed Complaint would be replaced on August 21, 2017

with Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [DE 26]. Although both the original Complaint

and the First Amended Complaint stated four causes of action, with the exception of a

completely restated Breach of Contract cause of action, none of the other pleading

theories of liability had any commonality. Moreover, and again unknown on July 5, 2017

to Magistrate Brannon and the undersigned attorneys, on July 18, 2017, Schneider

appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal from the underlying Palm Beach County

Circuit Court foreclosure litigation. Shortly stated, the landscape of the Schneider v. First

American Bank litigations dramatically changed in the two months after trial was

scheduled in this litigation.

Schneider and First American have “agreed to disagree” as to the impact, if any,

of Schneider’s appeal to the Fourth DCA from the Foreclosure Judgment. With that said,

both Parties have recognized the import of the Circuit Court/4th DCA litigation and tacitly

consented to an informal “stand-down” in the captioned litigation while the Parties await

this Court’s ruling(s) on First American’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay.

Both Parties appreciate the Court’s busy docket of cases and understand that the

Court has not yet been able to rule on the pending Motions. Candidly, before receiving

the January 3, 2018 and January 4, 2018 Orders to which this Joint Response is directed,

both of the undersigned attorneys had envisioned receiving one or more rulings from this

Court on the outstanding Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion to Stay. Both of the

undersigned attorneys have been fully cognizant of the fact that First American’s Motion

to Dismiss and Motion to Stay were both fully briefed as of September 27, 2017. Finally,

both undersigned counsel were aware of the fact that the 90-day time frame set out in

4
Case 9:17-cv-80728-DMM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2018 Page 5 of 6

Local Rule 7.1(b)(4) began running on September 27, 2017, and was due to expire on

December 27, 2017 (in the midst of the year-end Holiday Season), at which time either

Party (or the Parties jointly) would have been authorized by the Local Rules to file a

“Notification of 90-Days Expiring” pleading in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(b)(4).

Unfortunately, before either Party was able to prepare/submit such a notice, this Court

entered its January 3, 2018 Order to Show Cause [DE 46].

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the undersigned recognize that a better course

of action would have been for the Parties to have conferred prior to the Holiday Season

and submitted one or more appropriate motions (seeking to continue the February 20,

2018 trial date, to continue the time for conducting Court-Ordered Mediation, or both).

With that said, the simple fact of the matter is that both Parties have long-recognized that

no meaningful Mediation of this matter can occur until such time as a determination is

made as to what cause of action or causes of action will survive the pending Motion to

Dismiss or what this Court’s ultimate ruling will be on First American’s Motion to Stay.

Respectfully submitted,

TANTILLO LAW PLLC KELLER & BOLZ, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant
1629 K Street, NW, Suite 300 121 Majorca Avenue, #200
Washington, DC 20006 Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: Telephone: (305) 529-8500
Telefax: Telefax: (305) 529-0228
Email: btantillo@tantillolaw.com Email: hbolz@kellerbolz.com

By: s/Brent Tantillo By: s/Henry H. Bolz, III

Brent Tantillo Henry H. Bolz, III
Admitted Pro Hac Vice Florida Bar No. 260071

5
Case 9:17-cv-80728-DMM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/08/2018 Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Joint

Response to Mediation Order to Show Cause was delivered to the addressee below via

transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this 8th day of

January, 2018:

BRENT TANTILLO, ESQ.

Tantillo Law PLLC
Counsel for Laurence Schneider
1629 K Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington DC 20006
Email: btantillo@tantillolaw.com

MANJIT SINGH GILL, ESQ.

Counsel for Laurence Schneider
6810 N. State Road 7, Suite 300
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Email: manjit.gillesq@gmail.com

KELLER & BOLZ, LLP

By: s/Henry H. Bolz, III

Henry H. Bolz, III